<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.17102" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><B><I><FONT face="Times New Roman">
<P align=left><FONT size=2>State v. Jones, </FONT></B></I></FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=2>__ Or App __, __ P3d __ (November 9, 2011) (Lane)
(AAG Tiffany</FONT></P>
<P align=left><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2>Keast). </FONT></P>
<P align=left><FONT face="Times New Roman"><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=112511719-18112011> </SPAN>Defendant was charged with
numerous crimes relating to an assault on his wife. When</FONT></FONT></P>
<P align=left><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2>the state proffered evidence
that he previously had assaulted the victim and an ex-girlfriend,</FONT></P>
<P align=left><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2>defendant argued that the
proffered evidence did not meet the five-factor test for
admissibility</FONT></P>
<P align=left><FONT size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman">under </FONT><I><FONT
face="Times New Roman">State v. Johns</I></FONT></FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><FONT size=2>, 301 Or 535 (1986), but the trial court
overruled his objection. He was</FONT></P>
<P align=left><FONT size=2>convicted and sentenced to 670 months in prison. On
appeal, defendant argued: that </FONT></FONT><I><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><FONT size=2>Johns </FONT></I></FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><FONT size=2>was</FONT></P>
<P align=left><FONT size=2>irrelevant because he denied assaulting the victim
and hence his intent was not at issue; that the</FONT></P>
<P align=left><FONT size=2>evidence was unfairly prejudicial and should have
been excluded under OEC 403; and that</FONT></P>
<P align=left><FONT size=2>balancing under OEC 403 was not precluded by OEC
404(4), and if it was, that violated his</FONT></P>
<P align=left><FONT size=2>constitutional rights.</FONT></P></FONT><I><FONT
face="Times New Roman">
<P align=left><FONT size=2><U>Held</U></FONT></I></FONT><FONT size=2><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><U>: Affirmed.</U> [1] Defendant’s argument that
</FONT><I><FONT face="Times New Roman">Johns </I></FONT></FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><FONT size=2>did not apply because his intent</FONT></P>
<P align=left><FONT size=2>was not at issue was not reviewable because he did
not raise that argument below. [2] Because</FONT></P>
<P align=left><FONT size=2>defendant did not cite Art I, § 11, to the trial
court in support of his “impartial jury” claim, it was</FONT></P>
<P align=left><FONT size=2>also was not reviewable as not preserved
(distinguishing </FONT></FONT><I><FONT face="Times New Roman"><FONT size=2>State
v. Walker</FONT></I></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman"><FONT size=2>, 350 Or
540, 550</FONT></P>
<P align=left><FONT size=2>(2011)). [3] Because OEC 404(4) precludes balancing
under OEC 403, it “effectively removed</FONT></P>
<P align=left><FONT size=2>that factor from the </FONT></FONT><I><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><FONT size=2>Johns </FONT></I></FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><FONT size=2>analysis.” [4] The preclusion of OEC 403
balancing does</FONT></P>
<P align=left><FONT size=2>not categorically violate due process. Defendant did
not raise any argument that balancing was</FONT></P>
<P align=left><FONT size=2>constitutionally required in his
case.</FONT></P></FONT><I><FONT face="Times New Roman">
<P align=left><FONT size=2>Note</FONT></I></FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><FONT size=2>: The court appears to suggest that if
defendant had argued to the trial court that the</FONT></P>
<P align=left><FONT size=2>challenged evidence was irrelevant, he may have
sufficiently raised and preserved a claim that</FONT></P>
<P align=left><FONT size=2>due-process principles required
balancing.</FONT></P></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#0000ff><FONT
face="Times New Roman" color=#0000ff size=2>
<P
align=left>http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A142958.pdf</P></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
*****CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*****<BR>
<BR>
This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context or otherwise that you have received this e-mail in error, please advise me immediately by reply e-mail, keep the contents confidential, and immediately delete the message and any attachments from your system. <BR>
<BR>
************************************<BR>
</DIV></BODY></HTML>